Analysis of Statutory Interpretation and Precedent in English Law

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of statutory interpretation and the doctrine of precedent within the English legal system. It begins by defining statutory interpretation, emphasizing its role in resolving ambiguities in law and ensuring accurate application. The essay explores the three primary rules of interpretation: the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule, illustrating each with relevant case law examples, such as Fisher v. Bell and Adler v. George. The discussion extends to how these rules are applied in various contexts, including contractual agreements and employment law. Furthermore, the essay addresses the concept of precedent, examining how it shapes legal decisions and the circumstances under which precedents may be overruled. It explores the hierarchy of courts and the importance of consistent judicial decision-making. The essay concludes by evaluating the challenges and complexities of balancing adherence to precedent with the need for justice and adaptability in the legal system.

English legal system
project

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3
Development of statutory interpretation is for removing issues generated by ambiguities in
law...............................................................................................................................................3
System precedent makes it very difficult to unjust decisions which shall be overruled. Does
one agree or does not agree to such criticisms............................................................................7
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................8
.........................................................................................................................................................9
References .....................................................................................................................................10

Essay 1
Development of statutory interpretation is for removing issues generated by ambiguities in law.
The basic purpose of this essay shall be to conclude and emphasise upon correct
application of statutory interpretation & its rules. In general cases courts are pitched to make
exact interpretation i.e. to explain some word or phrase which is used in any statute. Such
disputes can arise due to any issue or misunderstandings in understanding basic meaning of law.
The basic issue is the lack for correct interpretation and communication in law for explaining
things briefly. This lets an open view for judiciary to interfere & giving correct interpretation.
The correct meaning of statutory interpretation is to give correct translation of any written
document. This law follows interpretation act 1978, which give only a little scope of
understanding common provisions and resumption of all contexts of laws since here, masculine
form of text includes feminine context and most of singular sentences are actually plural(Iqbal
and Hashmi, 2015).
Their are three basic methods in which interpreting a statue is done through literal,
golden and mischief rule. All the rules which are mentioned are to be explained with different
case laws(Erasmus, Grobler and Van Niekerk, 2015).
The basic literal rule is defined by an landmark case of Fisher vs bell (1960).
In this case defendant is a shopkeeper who puts up a knife on display on which its price was
mentioned. The shop had a sign of “offering for sale” he was prosecuted under the Restriction of
Offensive Weapons Act 1959 as it was considered to be offensive and came under illegal
weaponising. In contract law interpretation of shopkeepers display was just an invitation for
buying that product. Here, it was pre-assumed that draftsmen at parliament should know the
basic technical language and common law was not changed in the case(Chaudhary and Bhaskar,
201).
The second rule which is golden rule is actually a extensive branch of literal rule but is
has both a broader and narrow perspective which can be explained by the landmark case. Adler
vs George (1964) in this case access to RAF station & all members of the majesty with securities
and duties to be “in vicinity in an area of abandoned place”. Here the interpretation was done
over the official secrets act 1920, in which it was allowed to make a public demonstration in area
of military but not outside that areas. This created the contradiction of creating chaos and

absurdity(Hakeem and Gulzar, 2015).The defendant here was found guilty even if his intension
was not that. The interpretation of such term was taken wrong and he was put up to be guilty.
Later in the courts judge's make a proper clarification on the fact that “in the vicinity of” shall be
interpreted to be next to any restricted area or zone. The court here applied golden rule and stated
that inherit will not assume accused for being guilty.
The last and final rule which is used in the interpretation law is mischief rules where any
judge has to interpret the correct contradiction and meaning of the laws. In here the basic remedy
or solution is seek by the person and in the end the basic ultimate purpose is to create effective
implementation of laws so that any or to misunderstanding can be avoided. The classic
statement of the mischief rule is that given by the Barons of the Court of Exchequer in
Heydon’s Case (1854): “…for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general, four
things are to be discerned and considered(Raja and Kumar, 2016).
In the basic modern world there are several cases which will be done for fact that when
companies merge with each other there are always contradictions between he laws which are to
be applied. The terms & conditions over which an contractual agreement is formed is always
formed with negations from both sides and this subject can always create mess in future. Their
are certain rights and privileges which are given to them. In some cases these rights are breached
and broken to which several contradictions are created because of wrong interpretation of laws
and rights. This can be understood with correct case law which was held in court of TWI
Training and Certification (SE Asia) the case is named as Sdn Bhd v Jose A Sebastian [1998] 2
ILR 879.
In this case it was recognised that company has certain rights to construct and re
construct or merge under the managerial prerogative area. This decided fact that there are several
privilege which shall be used in best interest and out come for company. This is also done by the
company to define or pick out weakness of company and recover it back with several changes
which are needed for correct implementation(Imna and Hassan, 2015).
On the same stream their was some another case in which, interpretation creates issues
and distinctively it was solved by intervention of judiciary in case. The court in case of, Hong
Leong Equipment Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Chuan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 481. in this case the
employees who do not fall into the view of employment act 1955 shall also have their contracts
maintained from its provisions and fall back.

Their is one more landmark case laws which has to be perfectly attempted for clearing several
concepts in this section. The case law of Lord Diplock in the Duport Steel v Sirs case (1980)
this was the landmark case to define and quote perfectly the meaning and workings of literal
rule. It states that “ Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not
then for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to it’s
plain meaning because they consider the consequences for doing so would be inexpedient, or
even unjust or immoral”
This definition was given by them, in simple terms it means that any judge shall not
interfere and change interpretation even if results are unfair in nature. It is not allowed to create
any perspective or outcome from laws and shall never change the will power of parliament into
contradiction.
Their are several case laws which will explain the ambiguities of law because of statutory
interpretation of laws. In the case laws of KOK WAH KUAN V PP [2007] 4 CLJ 454, in this
case their were several disputes but most contradictory act which was wrongly interpreted in the
act of child act 2001 the appeal made in the court was to provide the fact that giving the rights
and laws are to be done in the facts for the last approach. Here it is contradicted that any case
which as to be implemented by the criminal court of jurisdiction shall not be complicated in the
term(Khalid and Nawab, 2018).
Also in a similar case which was considered to be the main understanding judiciary
explanation where people where explained several difference in making interpretations and
changes in several facts. The case laws is PP v KOK WAH KUAN (2007) in this case the
appeal made in court for the provisions were maintained in the fact of court rooms and judges.
The basic interpretation there are several doctrines which have been used in this case. Some of
the doctrine where wrongly interpreted due to which several contradicted cases were popped up.
Their is a the basic necessity of the judges to intervene again and explain the basic purpose of
doctrines and explain logic behind using such. Their is no way that any such written doctrines
can be removed but it shall provide correct interpretation while placing a appeal on its
basis(Anitha, 2016).
The term of statutory interpretation should be referring towards what action is taken
inside the court room regarding fact when any law is applied and the results or outcomes is not
up to the mark. Their are also new aspects which can be understood from case laws of Corkery

v Carpenter (1951) in this case the defendant was riding the bicycle under the influence of
alcohol and was accused under the licensing act 1872 which is considered to be charged with
drunken carriage which was also on the highway. In this case the court applied the mischief rule
of interpretation and the accused was proven guilty since he was harming his life as well as
several other passengers. In such cases the court interprets that it doest matter what vehicle is
been operated while being in public areas, first it is wrong & illegal to drink then if any accident
happens apart from that one person several other people are going to get affected due to his
behaviour of being negligent(Kossivi, and Kalgora, 2016).
In the last it shall be best explained with the case law of Liyanage v R it is said that the
sum interpretation shall be done on based rights and principles made by government. It is made
to be very clear that all the interpretation shall be done in context of all the principles and
standards decided by the legislation, any interpretation which shall be charged should be done on
the basis of constructive & charged in nature. In the given case it was said that the privy council
declared a statue which shall be expressed in the compromised form which was compromising
several judicial provisions. It is expressed here that one shall always create an law or council
workings which shall be applicable to all & mindset should be judged before declaring any such.
System precedent makes it very difficult to unjust decisions which shall be overruled. Does one
agree or does not agree to such criticisms.
This topic is a bit confusing at the same time it emerges from the query that weather all
decision taken by the highest bench of judiciary hierarchy are right to wrong. Fort t=an simple
explanation it can be seen that judiciary has so many hierarchy levels because of the fact that not
every decision shall be taken correctly by each court and in the case of people who would seek
more justice will appeal in higher bench. These benches helps the individual and the court as
well to understand all the aspects of such case. Due to this one can define case properly and
make it better in understands and provide correct judgement and jurisdiction. The supreme court
has developed such large body of to accumulate correct judicial decision and correct any
interpretation if cited wrong in any case. The method of courts using precedent has changed the
thinking an developed a theory of weather supreme court should follow the rules and legislative
principles or overrule them(Hanaysha, 2016)
Although it is very rare that court or any judicial bench has ever overruled any final
judgement once passed. Then they have always stated that their should be some strong grounds

on which one shall be dependent if the case is very complicated or judgement is not up to mark.
These shall be formulated and used in the case if it goes beyond the matter of disagreeing with
the prior decision reasoning to over rule constitutional precedent.
The quality which has to be overruled in any judgement is stated by several principles
which becomes the reasoning issue to overrule any judgement. The workability shall also be
considered by supreme court or any court before thinking to overrule any case's judgement. This
determines that fact that weather the ruling is wrong or the lower court does not have correct
implementation of the judgement which is causing troubles and is becoming “unworkable” in
nature.
Every area of a society is governed by the legislations and rules provided by English
legal system. The case examples described in this report contain individual facts and issues
which can be used for deciding future case laws. Apart from this, there are different kinds of
rules of statutory interpretation which are applied for getting a meaning which can be relied
upon. These help in obtaining a clear picture of the real situation by reducing difficulties and
ambiguities. Furthermore, the highest authority or the constitution has developed a judicial
hierarchy for assigning individual jurisdiction to deal with matters. These are divided into
different courts such as high court, session and many more. Common law has provided that
inferior courts cannot overrule decisions of the highest authority but there may be wrong
judgements even by the supreme court which should be overruled in those areas where unjust
decisions have been taken.
Inconsistency with several other decisions, the supreme court should look upon the fact
that there are many decision which are taken by them and they shall be relatable in the case and
only if the main component of the laws is not applicable in the case then it shall not be declared
unprecedented. Their is a noticed that by times the case facts also change or contradict which
will change the perceptive of the fact is differently understood by other courts. This will let the
court overrule the judgement. Their is also several decisions of supreme court which shall be
implied on the factors and depending on the factor that the court will overrule any such decision
which shall not be relied over it.
Several laws and judgements also help in understanding the concepts better and with more
clarity. Planned parenthood v. casey (1992)

It is one of the most landmark cases related to the plurality opinion, the court should be
constitutional rights and several standards which have to be implied in the factors of explaining
things correctly this case law opened several eyes for all the contradictions in such case can gave
new paths to understanding different concepts.
Marbury v. madison(1803)
The supreme court case shall be established on the basis of the principles and jurisdiction
in the preview which states that the country shall consists the basic rights to make laws and
provisions flexible as according to their rulings. it was later contradicted that laws and principles
cannot be done without them.
West coast hotel v. parrish(1937)This case was related to minimum wage rates in which all the
consistent files shall be done to make laws overrule because the wage rates which were decided
by the government was very less which was causing several issues in the country. Such rules
were later overruled because this shall sort out the problems due to increase in the wage rate and
incapability of the working environment sin country.
The origin of English legal system is United Kingdom which has its individual unwritten
constitution that has worked as the foundation for many legal systems in the world. It comprises
of common, statutory, public, private and other as well. These provide legal provisions which are
used in different cases for determining a suitable conclusion. There are nations which use this for
their legal system and every individual has to follow these for conducting their activities. There
are punishments and penalties for wrong doing. These have been formulated to give protection to
public. Also, their application and scope extend to organizations which exist in a country. In this
report, variety of ways have been analysed in respect to rules of statutory interpretation. Along
with this, a discussion has been provided to understand the how the system of precedent brings
difficulties for unjust decisions that have tendency to be overruled. These have been explained
with the help of variety of real cases which have occurred in the past along with own
interpretation.
In exercising these expertise one has to conclude the fact that not all cases are need to be
overrules and in the case of conclusive results one needs to have an exceptional case since if no
such provisions are made regarding its solution it can be more briefly understood by such case
laws.In the case law of Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976), in this case the house
of lords were pointed out questioned on the basis of courts hierarchy, to make them bound their

decision but due to no strong grounds and conclusion they were rejected and made the appeal
was rejected in the court rooms.
These two case were marked in the landmark case to defining proper landmarking cases were
done Balfour v Balfour [1919] and Merrit v Merrit [1971]. in this case the agreement in done
in the case laws of the fact that one has to make an legal arrange for the fact of after tow people
no more in marriage together shall not be commended in any agreement laws and contractual
changes
In the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a plurality which justifies the proper core aspects
of courts earlier proceedings which was connected to the case of Roe v. Wade, where a women
protected her constitutional rights of liberty in terminating her pregnancy as it was an critical
situation and some decisions. In such cases the plurality effect which are in the provisional laws
brings a lot of confusion in the mindset of even judges. Then it was made clear that one has to
provide several outlandish changes which have to be done correctly and make required changes
in the made law. Their was one of the most outstanding case laws of supreme court where
Citizens United v. FEC illustrated where the controversy of an promoted significant debate was
held, in which issue arises that overruling any precedent can also be very controversial and in the
decision of 2010 their was the first amendment done in to prohibit the government from
extending several expenditures and the political speeches shall not use quotes or work for just
getting the votes or support from the citizens.
In the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, the court had to overturn the restrictions over the
commerce cause that no such states shall not be restricted since the retailers with daily basis
business where getting several losses and were lacking in providing or completing demands of
particular customers. This was done my remitting the taxes on sales in the states directly by the
citizens themself.
In the case law of Herrington v British Railway Board (1972), was the case where the term for
practice statement on which an important changes where marked for the doctrine of precedent.
Later the houses of legislation the two pillars of creating laws in the country had to sit down to
make required changes by their interpretation were made very clear.
In the case law of Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976), in this case the house of
lords were pointed out questioned on the basis of courts hierarchy, to make them bound their

decision but due to no strong grounds and conclusion they were rejected and made the appeal
was rejected in the court rooms.
These two case were marked in the landmark case to defining proper landmarking cases were
done Balfour v Balfour [1919] and Merrit v Merrit [1971]. in this case the agreement in done
in the case laws of the fact that one has to make an legal arrange for the fact of after tow people
no more in marriage together shall not be commended in any agreement laws and contractual
changes
References
Books and journals

Anitha, J., 2016. Role of Organisational Culture and Employee Commitment in Employee
Retention. ASBM Journal of Management. 9(1).
Chaudhary, N. S. and Bhaskar, P., 2016. Training and development and job satisfaction in
education sector. Training and Development. 2(8).
Erasmus, B. J., Grobler, A. and Van Niekerk, M., 2015. Employee retention in a higher
education institution: An organisational development perspective. Progressio. 37(2).
pp.33-63.
Hakeem, I. A. and Gulzar, S., 2015. Employee engagement: An empirical study of higher
education sector in Kashmir. Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of
Research in Management&Techonology. 4(4). pp.20-26.
Hanaysha, J., 2016. Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environment, and
organizational learning on organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 229. pp.289-297.
Imna, M. and Hassan, Z., 2015. Influence of human resource management practices on
employee retention in Maldives retail industry. International Journal of Accounting,
Business and Management. 1(1). pp.1-28.
Iqbal, S. and Hashmi, M.S., 2015. Impact of perceived organizational support on employee
retention with mediating role of psychological empowerment. Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS). 9(1). pp.18-34.
Khalid, K. and Nawab, S., 2018. Employee participation and employee retention in view of
compensation. SAGE Open .8(4). p.2158244018810067.
Kossivi, B., Xu, M. and Kalgora, B., 2016. Study on determining factors of employee
retention. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 4(05). p.261.
Raja, D. and Kumar, R.A.R., 2016. A Study on Employee Retention in Education Sector in
India. International Journal of Management (IJM). 7(3).
Essay-1
Fisher vs bell (1960), [Online]. AVAILABLE THROUGH:
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/fisher-v-bell.php>
Adler vs George (1964)[Online]. AVAILABLE THROUGH:<http://www.e-
lawresources.co.uk/Adler-v-George.php>
Barons of the Court of Exchequer in Heydon’s Case (1854) Sdn Bhd v Jose A Sebastian
[1998] 2 ILR 879[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_7_April_2012/17.pdf>
Hong Leong Equipment Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Chuan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ
481Lord[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://caselaws.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/hong-leong-equipment-sdn-bhd-
v-liew-fook-chuan-other-appeals-court-of-appeal-kuala-lumpur-gopal-sri-ram-jca-siti-
norma-yaakob-jca-ahmad-fairuz-jca-civil-appeal-no-w-04-19-94-on-every-dec/>

Diplock in the Duport Steel v Sirs case (1980)[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/critical-
analysis-of-the-literal-golden-and-mischief-rule-law-essay.php>
KOK WAH KUAN V PP [2007]4 CLJ 454[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.jstor.org/stable/24869373?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>
PP v KOK WAH KUAN (2007)[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.google.com/search?
ei=Y82aXa7qLMuw9QOHkIywDg&q=PP+v+KOK+WAH+KUAN+&oq=PP+v+KOK+W
AH+KUAN+&gs_l=psy-
ab.3..0l3j0i8i67j0i22i30l3.24185.25117..25513...0.1..0.131.256.0j2......0....2j1..gws-
wiz.......0i71.O_QWc6cFQY4&ved=0ahUKEwjup_zDtYnlAhVLWH0KHQcIA-
YQ4dUDCAs&uact=5>
Corkery v Carpenter (1951)[Online]. AVAILABLE THROUGH:<http://www.e-
lawresources.co.uk/Corkery-v-Carpenter.php>
Liyanage v R[Online]. AVAILABLE THROUGH:<https://swarb.co.uk/liyanage-v-the-
queen-pc-1967/>
ESSAY-2
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Citizens United v. FEC [Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH: <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf>
Roe v. Wade,[Online]. AVAILABLE THROUGH:<https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-
v-Wade>
Planned Parenthood v. CaseyBalfour v Balfour [1919] [Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.britannica.com/event/Planned-Parenthood-of-Southeastern-
Pennsylvania-v-Casey>
Merrit v Merrit [1971].[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/merritt-v-merritt.php>
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976),[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://swarb.co.uk/miliangos-v-george-frank-textiles-ltd-hl-1975/>

West coast hotel v. parrish(1937)[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/300us379>
Marbury v. madison(1803)[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison>
Planned parenthood v. casey (1992)[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744>
Herrington v British Railway Board (1972)[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/British-Railways-Board-v-
Herrington.php>
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976)[Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://swarb.co.uk/miliangos-v-george-frank-textiles-ltd-hl-1975/>
Balfour v Balfour [1919] [Online]. AVAILABLE
THROUGH:<https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Balfour_v_Balfour>